At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Choice: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction for Landlord’s Bonafide Need

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decision, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh, upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, reinforcing the principle that a landlord’s bonafide need must be respected and the tenant cannot impose their standards on the suitability of the premises.

The case, involving the eviction of Shop No. 1 in Green Park, New Delhi, revolved around the landlord’s requirement to utilize the property for starting a consultancy and a boutique for his wife. The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and legal aspects, ultimately finding the landlord’s need to be bonafide and justified.

Justice Singh’s observation was pivotal in the ruling: “The landlord’s subjective choice of choosing one accommodation out of the others available with him has to be respected by the Court. The Court cannot compel the landlord to choose another accommodation to satisfy his said need.” This statement underlines the respect for a landlord’s autonomy in decisions regarding their property.

The Court also clarified the scope of a tenant’s right to challenge the landlord’s need for the property. It was noted that the tenant’s role does not extend to questioning the landlord’s choice of business or the specific premises they find suitable for their purposes. The landlord’s right to choose the most suitable premises for their intended business was emphasized, especially when the choice is made with a clear business rationale, as in the case of choosing a front-facing shop in a market for better visibility.

The judgment also touched on the principles of estoppel in property law, where a tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord’s ownership after acknowledging it through actions such as paying rent.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2023

RAJNI BAHL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS VS ARUN KUMAR NAYYAR        

Latest Legal News